mirror of
https://github.com/semver/semver.git
synced 2026-07-10 19:50:47 -05:00
[GH-ISSUE #523] Introduce a named concept for a version without pre-release label and without build metadata #7360
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
Delete Branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @basbossink on GitHub (Jul 8, 2019).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/semver/semver/issues/523
Spec-item2 states:
The word normal is a bit odd here. I believe that a proper name for the part of the semver containing only Major.Minor.Patch could really help make some other parts of the specification easier to read.
Some suggestions:
Using for instance the word unadordened a reformulation of the summary could read:
Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the:
Additional labels for pre-release and build metadata are available as extensions to the unadorned MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH format.
Using for instance the word unadordened a reformulation of spec item 2 could read:
Apparently the BNF uses the term
version corebut the text of the specification does not use a name for the same concept.@runeimp commented on GitHub (Jul 8, 2019):
I agree with the sentiment. Though I think core, as the core version designation, and as used in the BNF is probably fine.
@jwdonahue commented on GitHub (Aug 10, 2019):
Most of us simply refer to it as the version triple. I think "version core" is a misnomer and wish I had spotted it earlier. I agree the spec could use a tune-up here, but I don't like "unadorned version number", because it is not always unadorned, nor does the spec prohibit adornment, and it's not a version number, it's a tuple or more precisely a triplet of dot separated numeric fields.
@jwdonahue commented on GitHub (Aug 27, 2019):
@basbossink, unless you intend to issue a PR or you have further questions. Please close this issue at your earliest possible convenience.
@basbossink commented on GitHub (Sep 2, 2019):
Given the above discussion I don't think there is a clear winner on how change the spec resolving the issue raised. I think using the term "version triple" especially in spec item 2 would result in a weird form of duplication. So I will close this issue, if anyone can come up with a better formulation, a new issue can be created.